Quick Questions

A question about style of play [#2231]

96.50.23.170: A question about style of play(2010-03-22 02:06) [#7530]

Many years ago, I was introduced to Go by a Korean amateur 7dan. He gave me a 27 stone handicap. Since that time I have studied the usual (Japanese style) books and been introduced to the need for eyes, the trade off between territory and thickness, and so on. But my Korean master did not make eyes, or need territory. In the end he would have eyes (at least 27) and all the territory. But in all those years I have never seen anything written which explains his method, and I do not remember the details. Only that it felt like being attacked by an army of hyperactive worms. Can anyone refer me to a source for this strategy?

96.50.23.170: Re: A question about style of play(2010-03-23 04:47) [#7538]

Way back then, the only book we had was Arthur Smith's book "The Game of Go". To remind myself, I dug up my old copy and found, of course, that the handicap must have been 17 stones, since 27 doesn't make sense. Just my memory playing tricks, as it does. Still, I would think that only an idiot could lose at 17 stones.

What got me to remembering my teacher was that after a ten year hiatus, I took my go books out and went back to studying. Also I signed on to the KGS, and among all the conventional games in progress, happened to see a game, with a Korean handle, which was very similar to the way my master used to play. That is, an intense battle between eyeless strings of stones.

What I am trying too get at is that there must be a theory of this which is different from the standard theory in my books. I would like to find it. Thanks for your comments.

140.247.248.220: Re: A question about style of play(2010-03-24 08:19) [#7541]

There's no mysterious theory or strategy here. Every sufficiently strong player knows how to do this when appropriate, including all those players you saw playing only "conventional games". It's just the basic principles of how to play in an opponent's area of influence. Avoid getting surrounded, play lightly, and leave aji without settling the position too quickly to the opponent's advantage. When taken to the extreme in a high handicap game, this naturally leads to running battles between strings of stones on the board, where black may indeed easily collapse due to frequent tactical mistakes.

96.50.23.170: Re: A question about style of play(2010-03-26 05:34) [#7553]

I agree with your analysis. From playing over the usually rather quiet-seeming games of Shusaku, I can see that if the occasion demanded it, he would "steer for troubled waters", and demonstrate his mastery of fighting, which I am sure included all of the techniques which interest me.
Nevertheless, I think that in the background there lurks a mystery, and I will post it as a BQM. Thank you for your comments.

Connect your stones and don't do this: squeezing out the toothpaste (maybe the reason for the worm feeling). That should be enough to win a game with that much handicap, white stones don't have special properties. They die as black stones do.

194.78.35.195: Re: A question about style of play(2010-03-23 09:49) [#7539]

The strategy is called "remain a master of Go by demotivating as much newcomers as possible to enter the game". Giving 27H and winning, obviously using advanced skills, is a great example of how not to teach go. After the game you were left puzzled, even flabbergasted. Unless one is of the extremely persevering kind, even masochistic, one would pursue understanding the game. He went out of the exercise with more ego.

As tapir points out: connect your stones. Even God cannot win a 27H game if you keep your stones connected on a large scale (and do not fill your own eyes at the end, just a comment for the Roberts).